"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...
Full Story

<quoted text>The Tanach-antiiquties gift of world history the modern civilization... WND 11/18/2012

World Nut Daily is not a credible source. Next you'll be cutting and pasting stories from the National Enquirer, detailing how Romney won the election, and the Leftist media is simply reporting it wrong.

The TSA has announced that gravy and cranberry sauce will not be allowed on flights during the Thanksgiving holiday. They just reported that on CNN so it must be true.OBAMA AND THE TSA - FIGHTING TERRORISM BOTH HOME AND ABROAD!

The GOP might be out of step with some voters, but Mitt Romney was an unusually unpopular party standard-bearer.......

In particular, they are paying too little attention to how weak a candidate Mitt Romney was, and how much that hurt Republican prospects.

"Romney's favorable ratings were among the lowest recorded for a presidential candidate in the modern era."

Here is what the exit poll found. Mr. Romney's personal image took a hard hit during the primary campaign and remained weak on election day. Just 47% of exit-poll respondents viewed him favorably, compared with 53% for Mr. Obama. Throughout the campaign, Mr. Romney's favorable ratings were among the lowest recorded for a presidential candidate in the modern era. A persistent problem was doubt about his empathy with the average voter. By 53% to 43%, exit-poll respondents said that Mr. Obama was more in touch than Mr. Romney with people like themselves.

Surprisingly, Mr. Romney proved unable to exploit Mr. Obama's biggest weakness: the economy. Seventy-six percent of exit-poll respondents rated the national economy "poor" or only "fair," and just 25% said their finances were better off than they were four years ago. Yet voters expressed roughly equal confidence in Mr. Obama's ability to handle the economy (48%) as in Mr. Romney's (49%).

Mr. Romney was hurt by the perception—reinforced by Democratic attack ads and his secretly recorded comments about the "47%"—that he wasn't for the average voter. With 55% of voters in the exit poll saying they think the U.S. economic system favors the wealthy, a large majority believed that Mr. Obama's policies favor the middle class (44%) or the poor (31%). By contrast, 53% thought Mr. Romney's policies would favor the rich.

The beating heart of modern conservatism is its visceral appeal to anxieties and fears of white Christians.… Once you understand this then you can see that the Republican party’s problems are deeper than, say, Republican opposition to comprehensive immigration reform, or even the far less controversial DREAM Act. That policy opposition is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The deeper issue is that for conservative politicians and networks and websites there is simply too much to be gained by feeding the sense of persecution and siege that many white Christians feel down to their toes.

The problem is, in today's Republican universe, there are powerful incentives for opinion shapers like Limbaugh not to win elections. Rush Limbaugh did not need Mitt Romney to win in order to have influence, to have clout, and to make money, in fact, he might have more influence, more clout, more prominence, and make more money if Mitt Romney loses. And he is feeding information, creating talking points, and creating sort of the agenda for the party base. And there's this beautiful built-in excuse: it's like a "heads I win, tails you lose" thing for a guy like Limbaugh. You can run an election like this, and Romney can lose, and it can be "Well, Romney wasn't conservative enough." OR you can look at one of those races…where clearly they nominated the most conservative candidate and they still lost, then the excuse is "Well, the sellouts in the party establishment abandoned the pure conservative candidate." So either way you can feed the sense of conservative victimhood, and a guy like Limbaugh can always pit himself against the party establishment, and he…doesn't need to tell the base something that's going to win an election, he needs to tell the base something that's going to make them feel good and make them feel like they're fighting against the powerful, arrogant establishment.

Scott Galupo observes that Jennifer Rubin’s pro-Romney cheerleading has suddenly vanished now that he is yesterday’s man, and adds:

You know what might help improve conservative “messaging” problems in future campaigns? A more honest class of professional pundits.

Rubin was an extreme example of completely shameless Romney boosterism over the last year, but like a lot of other partisans she defended many Romney blunders during the campaign no matter how absurd they might have been. This wasn’t just a matter of covering for a candidate’s mistakes, which is what one can expect from partisan supporters. More often, this involved celebrating the candidate’s failures as brilliant masterstrokes that would carry the ticket to victory. According to this view, Romney’s foreign trip was a triumph, his response to the Benghazi and Cairo attacks was appropriate and correct, and his 47% comments were a clever indictment of the incumbent’s agenda.

There was a brief period in late September when many conservative activists claimed to be pleased by Romney’s 47% comments because they thought he was making a valid and vitally important argument. Because it was neither valid nor popular, that particular pro-Romney argument died away fairly quickly, but the partisan impulse to make excuses for one’s candidate and otherwise “get with the program” remained as strong as ever. Once Romney lost, his partisan boosters could return to their previous disdain for him, and they were suddenly free to be embarrassed by him. Partisan and personal political incentives now direct these former boosters to create as much distance between the party and its failed nominee as possible. It should be kept in mind that it was the same impulse that earlier drove Romney supporters to ignore all of the signs that their candidate was failing and to overlook the evidence that he was a poor candidate for the Presidency.

Muslims suck! They are stuck in time - about 1000 years ago. Liberals are whacked and defend them.Nuff said.

You have just offended a fast-growing segment of American society. They are not stuck in time. They are simply following "traditional Muslim values" as decreed by Mohammed and Allah. When they behead an "infidel" or murder their daughter for looking at a boy, thus disgracing the family, they are simply following religious tradition. You should get with the 21st century and show more religious tolerance.

The problem is, in today's Republican universe, there are powerful incentives for opinion shapers like Limbaugh not to win elections. Rush Limbaugh did not need Mitt Romney to win in order to have influence, to have clout, and to make money, in fact, he might have more influence, more clout, more prominence, and make more money if Mitt Romney loses. And he is feeding information, creating talking points, and creating sort of the agenda for the party base. And there's this beautiful built-in excuse: it's like a "heads I win, tails you lose" thing for a guy like Limbaugh. You can run an election like this, and Romney can lose, and it can be "Well, Romney wasn't conservative enough." OR you can look at one of those races…where clearly they nominated the most conservative candidate and they still lost, then the excuse is "Well, the sellouts in the party establishment abandoned the pure conservative candidate." So either way you can feed the sense of conservative victimhood, and a guy like Limbaugh can always pit himself against the party establishment, and he…doesn't need to tell the base something that's going to win an election, he needs to tell the base something that's going to make them feel good and make them feel like they're fighting against the powerful, arrogant establishment.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc...

<quoted text>Who was the politician who invested in private companies like McDonalds? It was Mitt Romney, the successful businessman who knew how to do his job. As well as this, the companies he chose would create job opportunies for young people, as well as increase their salary. Mitt Romney knew how to do his job, he is simply waiting to actually do it.

Romney invested in McDonald's because he hates black people and he wants them to get fat and die. It's rumored that their "free drink refills" was all his idea.

Mitt Romney made several big gaffes during the presidential campaign, but the biggest by far was his assertion to a room full of rich donors that 47% of Americans refuse to take responsibility for themselves.

As even conservatives quickly pointed out, the half of the country that Romney was referring to--those who don't pay federal income taxes--includes tens of millions of dedicated professionals who pay other taxes and perform services and make things that everyone in this country needs.

The remarks on the conference call reveal three things about Romney, two of which we already knew:

He tailors his remarks to what he thinks the people he's talking to want to hear.

(There's nothing inherently wrong with this. Most good salespeople do it. But it's certainly valid to ask what these salespeople actually believe, and in the case of Romney, we still haven't gotten a clear answer. It's also strange that Romney hasn't learned by now that when you say anything in the context of a presidential campaign, you're talking to the whole country.)

He really doesn't have much respect for people who aren't rich — or, at least, for those who accept any sort of government services, benefits, or help.

Perhaps this is a common view of those in Romney's social circles. If so, it reflects the worldview that Republicans seem desperate to cling to, that the world is made up of "makers" and "takers" and that only the former deserve any respect. The wholesale embrace of this view would be more understandable if so many Romney voters weren't — in the Republican definition — in the "taker" category.

He's a sore loser.

Romney's remarks on the call actually provided a very clear explanation of why he lost. The explanation just doesn't happen to be the one he gave.

(He lost, it seems safe to say, because he doesn't understand or care about the circumstances of most people in this country. You can argue about the effectiveness of social and poverty programs, civil rights laws, and other attributes of a progressive, modern society, but viewing all these things as "gifts" is deeply polarizing at best.)

Romney's concession speech on election night was gracious. Too bad he didn't stop with that one.

The beating heart of modern conservatism is its visceral appeal to anxieties and fears of white Christians.… Once you understand this then you can see that the Republican party’s problems are deeper than, say, Republican opposition to comprehensive immigration reform, or even the far less controversial DREAM Act. That policy opposition is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The deeper issue is that for conservative politicians and networks and websites there is simply too much to be gained by feeding the sense of persecution and siege that many white Christians feel down to their toes.http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/10/white-identity...

<quoted text> Eliminating all the Government "giveaway" programs would put a big dent in it. I bet if and mammyfare was eliminated a vast majority of ghetto-rats would suddenly find jobs. I bet if Obamaphones were eliminated, a vast majority of ghetto-rats would still find a way to buy one. I bet if foods stamps were eliminated them ghetto-rats wouldn't starve. From the looks of most of them they live to eat anyway. They'd find a way. Maybe get a smaller wide-screen TV or put normal rims on their cars. Or they could just hock all their illegal guns. What the hell is Obama doing giving away food stamps anyway when, according to Moochelle, obesity is America's #1 health problem? Talk about hypocritical!

First of all you racist saltine cracker, research before you start blabbing at your shyt hole. There's far more white people on welfare than any other race. Second of all, why you worried what folks in the hood driving? You jealous you wheat thin? Third, the system is designed for things to be this way. For every 1 person that makes it out the ghetto 20/30 people are stuck due to the overwhelmingly white preference by white employers. They had to pass affirmative action just so some blacks had to be hired. You a blind cracker! You want too act like shyt really changed but if they had to pass a law that shows you aint nothing change. Thats that piece of the pie bullshit & ya'll think we going to keep falling for it. Thats why we hustle! Thats how we level the playing field. So nil dumass, the govt ain't giving us shyt, we take it how we make it. Them rats you speak of have the same skin color as you, ancestors come from the caves & mountains like yours & the thing that gives life to every living thing is cancerous to them to. The truth is you mad because we got what ya'll got & thats that you ritz cracker!

<quoted text>Romney invested in McDonald's because he hates black people and he wants them to get fat and die. It's rumored that their "free drink refills" was all his idea.

He made the point that sugary soft drinks play no part in obesity because there's no such thing as "sugary soft drinks". They're "high-fructose corn syrupy" soft drinks. That's why soft drinks all taste like crap nowdays.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.